Rogue Columnist

State of the Union

2012-01-26T00:01:00-08:00

Leave it to Jan Brewer to embarrass Arizona on any national stage given her. When President Obama came to visit Intel a day after his State of the Union address, the governor "greeted" him in a memorable photo: Her mouth angrily open and her finger in his face. Way to go, Jan! Wonder how Intel feels about its day in the sun as a high-tech employer that actually invests in America being eclipsed by you? The governor's whining on Fox "News" about Mr. Obama criticizing her book is a laff-riot. First, did she actually write this book or was it produced by the propaganda machine of which Fox is an integral part? Second, if she did write it (or even has her name on it), there's no such thing as bad publicity. Oh, to have the chief executive trash South Phoenix Rules or Deadline Man. I would be smiling — and use it as a blurb in the next editions.

Brewer's behavior no doubt plays well in places such as Gilbert and Chandler and Alabama. Outside the red precincts of reality denial, this is more confirmation of Arizona's nuttiness and National Laughing Stock/Cringe-maker. What would Barry Goldwater say? Brewer tried to claim she only wanted to give him a letter about Arizona's "comeback" (huh?) and invite him to go to the border with her (uh?), but, as the Republic reported: "It was clear from the moment they greeted one another that this would not be a run-of-the-mill encounter between the president and a local official. At one point, she was pointing her finger at him and at another, they were talking at the same time, seemingly over each other. He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn't finish her sentence."

As Harry Truman repeatedly said, in various ways, You may think I'm a son-of-a-bitch, but you will damned well respect the office of president of the United States. That was then, before the party of "values." Now, to other aspects of the State of the Union address:

Mr. Obama got bin Laden and can be forgiven for reminding an electorate with short memories and a majority of "national security"-crazed white voters against him. Still, it is disturbing to see the ongoing militarism of such speeches — and American policies under presidents of both parties. The worship of uniforms and desire to pick fights, leave "all options on the table." All options, that is, except returning to a normal nation without the military-industrial complex, endless wars and corrosion of our liberties such bring in train. This was a nation that historically mistrusted standing armies and men in uniform, especially "brass hats" (Truman, again).

The abnormality of our constant state of siege did not deter Mr. Obama from saying, "Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home." Too bad that money was borrowed from the Red Chinese, while Americans were asked to make no sacrifices for two wars except to pocket tax cuts. And that "nation-building"? "We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges; a power grid that wastes too much energy; an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world." Just like Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge! I'm inspired, especially when I see other advanced nations with high-speed rail, fast and convenient conventional rail, etc., while all we can do is pave roads and wait for housing to come back. Mr. Obama won't even fight to keep Amtrak at its present, embarrassingly low, funding. Newt Gingrich's pandering about a moon base is better than the little Clintonesque initiatives proposed by the president who shut down NASA's manned spaceflight program.

If Mr. Obama's infrastructure thinking is so 1970 (with rural broadband thrown in), his energy policy is more so. While the speech had a few bromides about clean energy, the substance — and the reality happening — is all about fossil fuels. Mr. Obama buys into the questionable assertion that "we have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. (Applause.)." After promising to extract it safely, he made this astonishing claim: "The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. (Applause.) " But we do: Fracking's environmental dangers and consequences are serious and more is being learned of them almost daily, by the few paying attention.

Climate change? Remember that, Mr. President? Apparently not. The environmental, economic and social costs will be huge and destabilizing. What about the national-security risks of climate change and peak oil, the two most consequential events of our future? Why do we suddenly become doves when something seems to threaten our endless single-occupancy-trip driving and sitting in traffic congestion? Climate change merited one defeated mention.

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. (Applause.) That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and states. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.

What does that mean, sir? First, Lincoln started the transcontinental railroad and other internal improvements that were the forward-leaning infrastructure of their day. Second, if you're going to quote Lincoln, why not his axiom that "labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration"? And what education reform when states are slashing budgets, which especially hurts poor students in poor districts. One thing Arizona shows is the danger of the charter school racket. As for the health-care law's "reformed" private market, it has been re-formed to the extent that the insurance companies are making more money than ever, are as nasty to patients and wasteful as ever, and Americans still don't have universal health care.

Then, onto the usual inanities about taxes, most of which involve either endless tax credits we can't afford, or easy slaps at tax breaks for offshoring jobs or Warren Buffett's secretary's tax rates, etc. No real reform will come, because these are throwaway lines and the Democrats have little chance to retake the House. If they do, recall the courageous tax reforms they passed when they controlled Congress and the White House in 2009-2011. Breaks for offshoring were repealed, as were the Bush tax cuts for the richest, as was...oh, wait...

On second thought: At least Arizona wears its madness and denial right there for everyone to see.

Can liberalism be saved?

2012-01-24T00:01:00-08:00

The only thing that can save America is liberalism. Unfortunately, American liberalism is on its death bed if not in its coffin. Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." I'll let John F. Kennedy do it for me:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

Only liberalism, rightly understood, can stand for the middle class against the plutocracy, for the common good against nihilistic "individualism," for science and pragmatism against theocracy, for fair play against bigoted reaction. Liberalism gave us the greatest, widest wave of prosperity in the history of the world. It broke Jim Crow and let justice roll down like waters. It landed men on the moon. The seminal documents of the republic, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are liberal creeds. And today? Ashes. The best that can be said of Barack Obama is that he is the best Republican president since George H.W. Bush, and he is at his core a conservative who Edmund Burke or Bill Buckley would be proud to claim. That he is all that stands, even momentarily, between us and national suicide, is astounding.

Liberalism's demise has been well-examined by political scientists. Among the components: The breakdown of the New Deal coalition of big-city bosses, labor and Southern segregationists; the overreach of the Great Society; the Vietnam War, decline of organized labor, seeming weakness on national security and, of course, race. LBJ thought he would cost Democrats the South for "a generation" by signing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, one of his and liberalism's noblest achievements. It caused a permanent re-alignment.

To this, I would add some areas that get less notice. Continuing suburbanization destabilized old identities and loyalties while increasing disconnection. Busing was a particularly ill-conceived measure — nearly six decades after Brown, American schools are more segregated than ever. But liberals paid the political price for this alienating measure, and it wasn't just white parents that disliked it. Far better to simply invest heavily in good schools for everybody. Weak or ineffectual Democratic presidents played their roles, too. Jimmy Carter helped give the nation Reagan, and Bill Clinton led to W. Neither was able to move liberalism forward against a resurgent and increasingly pathological conservatism. Neither articulated liberalism appealingly to a broad base. Mr. Obama seemed different — but only in campaign mode.

In addition, liberalism succeeded so magnificently before its forward motion was stalled. Only in a country built by a liberal consensus held for decades by both parties would you have so much social, economic and intellectual seed corn to burn up in the follies of the past three decades. "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" the Tea Party cry in 2010, perfectly encapsulated this combination of success and obliviousness among the citizenry. Depending on the year, 40 percent to 50.1 percent of the voters will believe the blather of the right about "smaller government" and "taxes" and "SOCIALISM" — even when this very same cohort is likely net takers from the gub'ment that is the problem. I can't help but believe that the death of newspapers and an informed citizenry has much to do with what's the matter with Kansas, Arizona and every red state.

But the Democrats are more to blame than the velvety voice of Dutch or the diabolical machinations of Atwater and Rove. It's not just the weak Democratic presidents. It's the party's sell-out to big-money interests that have taken over American elections to an unprecedented degree. Bain has been among the lavish donors. Remember who willingly pushed and signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Correct-a-mundo: William Jefferson Clinton, the same man who helped vaporize hundreds of thousands of good jobs with telecom deregulation and millions more with NAFTA. After the GOP showed it was The Party That Wrecked America and lay in ruins with the Great Recession, the Democrats hastened to resuscitate it by failing to use progressive measures to help hurting average Americans. They saved the big banks and nobody of consequence has been prosecuted by the Obama Justice Department. Democratic majorities in Mr. Obama's first two years could agree on little but their fecklessness. The right fights. Liberals, with few exceptions, run. And most of today's elected Democrats aren't really liberals. Exhibit One is the president, who has been repeatedly rolled.

This state of affairs could not come at a worse time. From the economy and the collapse of the middle class to climate change and the pursuit of endless war, America faces as serious challenges as at any time in its history. They are issues of vast moral and even existential import. Liberals should shine here, and yet where are they?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the minorities to re-align Congress, the millennials to recover their Obama-snuffed idealism or other fantasies. Don't tell me about Occupy Wall Street: Not one Republican member of Congress fears for his seat because of this camp-out, whereas the Democrats could not capitulate fast enough when faced with some loud-mouths at district meetings and handfuls of white people in ersatz colonial dress. The whites will hold power for decades and too many of them are Fox viewers and pawns of the corporatists.

So what to do? All I can assume is that things must get much worse and then hope this nation can produce some leaders who will save us. It's happened before. But maybe we've just run out of luck.

Sunny delusions

2012-01-20T14:05:55-08:00

I climbed out of my funk that was half cabin fever from the rare Seattle snow (thank God, I'm downtown and not out in the suburbs) and part brain damage from the GOP debates. So far my nomination for the most under-covered Arizona story of the year goes to the abrupt resignation of Don Cardon as head of the state Commerce Authority. The Phoenix Business Journal carried the story. Then Betty Beard of the Republic wrote something more in depth:

Cardon, 51, said he believes it is a good time to leave because the commerce authority gives the state a good foundation for job recruitment, the Legislature has enacted more laws to help lure businesses and because there is improved cooperation among business and political leaders.

Cardon said he is especially pleased that the state recently attracted Silicon Valley Bank, which plans to build an operations center in Tempe, because it is a major venture-capital firm. All in all, he said, economic development efforts have come together faster than he expected.

Yet the "why" of old-school journalism remains largely unanswered.

First, getting a back-office operation of Silicon Valley Bank hardly presages a deluge of venture capital to a state with an under-educated workforce, no major tech sector aside from Intel's plants and few amenities to attract young tech talent. But set that aside. Cardon was always a strange choice to be the head of this alleged public-private partnership set up to replace the old Commerce Department hated by the Kookocracy. After a troubled/frustrating (depending on who you talk to) stint at City Hall as Phoenix's deputy housing director, Cardon rode the mid-2000s boom with some modest residential developments out on the fringes. He also pitched some downtown projects that went nowhere, and was involved in CityScape, which did take off. But he was a real-estate guy, notwithstanding a resume that included being community and economic director for Longview, Wash, population 36,648. This was the guy Gov. Jan Brewer picked after a national search for someone to lead a depressed state to a more diversified economy?

Then Cardon received a compensation package of $1 million over three years. It didn't hurt that he had become buds with Jerry Colangelo and Ken Kendrick. According to the Republic, he said he will repay half the salary to the authority's new CEO. "I am a visionary type of person, and I love to create what can be, especially in difficult situations. That's how I came up with the idea of CityScape and how I suggested the idea of privatizing the department of commerce," he said. OK. But the fact remains that the authority is a nebulous thing, lacking the economic-development toolbox denied the old Commerce Department for years. It makes one go, "Hmmmm."

UPDATE: This story, published Saturday, adds a double "Hmmmm." UPDATE 2: Another piece of the onion is peeled back Sunday.

Apparently nobody in a leadership position thinks Arizona needs the toolbox. The old game of low-wage back-office, tourism, service and warehouse ("fulfillment center") jobs, along with a real-estate recovery will make everything dandy again. Thus, Peoria wants to make its "old town" into an entertainment district. Surprise still wants to build a "downtown," just like Scottsdale's. Really. Tucson's plan, a bit more urban, is to offer free rent to somebody, anybody, who will locate downtown. In Phoenix, the old Chris-Town is trying to reinvent itself again — too bad the former owners were so foolish that they refused an offer to let light-rail have a station inside the mall. Deck chairs are shuffled and pieces of the pie stolen, as the "University" of Phoenix moves out of old office space off the Maricopa Freeway in the city over to new digs in Tempe. (Why is it that the UofP, one of the few substantial local headquarters, has no presence whatsoever in the Central Corridor?) With the vast Phoenix Desert Ridge flailing amid the wreckage of CityNorth, Mayor Greg Stanton wants to make it a biotech hub. No mention of the affect this will have on the still slow-moving Phoenix Biosciences Campus downtown. Why not just de-annex Desert Ridge? Scottsdale wants to build three new resorts near the McDowell Mountains. Abundant transit will no doubt be provided for the working poor who will staff these sunning spaces for the toffs from out of town.

And, of course, real estate. An 800-house "planned community" will break ground on the old GM proving grounds in far-away Mesa. Really. In fact, this backbone remains broken. The median house price in metro Phoenix last year was $125,000, compared with $260,000 in 2007 — and this is a median including all that stucco crap built out in the 'burbs. As far as existing house sales, 2011 saw 125 fewer than the previous year, according to an ASU report. Faced with a dismal report, the East Valley Tribune tried to focus on foreclosures being bad, but not that bad. C'mon. No wonder the employment situation remains dismal. Yet the boosters are undaunted, predicting such a stunning comeback that the metro will face a housing shortage by spring. Really, the housing market is "on the mend." This would be a laffer if not reported by a supposedly serious news outlets and believed by millions.

Meanwhile, Education Week's annual Quality Counts report places Arizona 44th out of 51 nationally (states plus D.C.), down two ranks from a year ago. The boosters may say, "Hey, we got a C-minus!" But that won't cut it in the competitive world economy. And in fact, school finance, K-12 achievement and the teaching profession all received Ds. Yet the state is focused on closing down that commie ethnic studies program in Tucson and furthering its reputation of intolerance and hate, hardly a draw for talent and capital however many Canadians buy a few cheap tract houses during the bust.

The focus remains where it has been stuck for years: On development for development's sake. The worst that could happen would be a temporary return to the old pathology boom, for it would only reinforce the delusions that drive what passes for leadership in Arizona. The focus should be on ensuring an excellent public education, especially for the children of the working poor, attracting foreign direct investment, building export industries, sticking with one sector in one location (the downtown biosciences campus) in an effort to create one successful high-wage cluster, tamping down the white-right extremism and driving serious non-real estate economic development. But, no. It's so 2007. In their minds, at least. So Phoenix and Arizona will continue to underperform, continue in a depression. Happy centennial. It's all Obama's fault, right?

Phoenix loses spring training

2012-01-17T00:01:00-08:00

The Oakland As have accelerated negotiations begun in November with Mesa to move spring training from Phoenix Municipal Stadium to Hohokam Stadium in 2015. The Chicago Cubs, the biggest draw in the Cactus League, are leaving Hohokam for the new Riverview development at Dobson and the Loop 202 in 2014. New Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton dryly told Channel 12's Brahm Resnik that he had "inherited" the situation — (and these are my words) one of many messes left behind by the lost weekend that was Phil Gordon's second term. Stanton promised to do "anything reasonable" to keep the As, but "we have to be fiscally responsible." Meanwhile, the Milwaukee Brewers' contract at the stadium in Maryvale (to me the most pleasant spring training venue, but one that lacks the splash and comfort of north Scottsdale) expires this year and it's unclear if they will renew.

Spring training in Arizona was once a sweet, simple thing. After World War II, the then New York Giants started play at the old Municipal Stadium, while the Cleveland Indians built Hi Corbett Field in Tucson. In 1951, the Cubs came to the old Rendezvous Park Stadium in Mesa. The teams traveled by train and their arrival at Union Station was always a big event. For years, the Cactus League had eight teams (although they came and went). When I was a child, tickets were cheap, even star players were close and the atmosphere was easy-going and small town. This persists today at some spring training facilities, but it's become big business, and like much else in our society, cities are played off against each other to surrender the most tax dollars to further enrich the already rich.

The question is whether Phoenix should do much, if anything, to keep spring training in the city?

A study claims that the Cactus League had a $348 million "economic impact" in 2010. As with such assertions about the Super Bowl, these numbers are notoriously unreliable. They don't account for the other events that might have been crowded out, where tourists and residents would have spent their money anyway. Environmental costs, effect on public services, distribution of tax revenues, quality of jobs created — all are left out. Critically, they don't factor in the increasing public subsidies that have gone into creating palatial spring-training facilities. Specifically, they don't account for the "opportunity costs" involved, say if these millions for stadiums had been spent in areas of greater economic and social potential. No question, the "Valley of the Sun" depends more heavily than ever on tourism, of which spring training is a substantial part. As a result, even in hard times, the Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority (gee, does this agency need a full-time investigative reporter on it) has spent heavily helping build new stadiums.

But Phoenix is probably out of this game. The suburbs have spent too much money already to lure Cactus League teams. They have the affluent residents and the newer infrastructure. It's too bad that none of the stadiums are reachable by light rail or other transit. That's another externality that's not priced in. And you can bet that without Jerry Colangelo, the Suns and Diamondbacks regular season would be played out on the fringes, only accessible by car. Still, tourism, including spring training, creates low-wage jobs. Of all the assets Phoenix is losing to the suburbs, spring training is the least of them.

I once supported stadiums as a way to keep major league teams, which are among the many amenities helpful to attracting quality companies and jobs. Now I am anti/curious if not outright anti-stadium. The owners got too greedy. In too many cases, the cities were losers and the ante was always being upped: More, more, more. In Seattle, the Sonics new owners tried to blackmail the city. This was stopped by a group called Citizens for More Important Things. The Sonics went to Oklahoma City and Seattle barely broke stride. Now a new potential owner is trying to put an arena right next to the football and baseball stadiums, near the light rail line and Sounder commuter trains, just south of downtown. Seattle is attractive because of its higher-quality economy.

Mayor Stanton has more important things to address: Creating, retaining and attracting high-wage jobs; extending transit; healing linear slums (make a start) and building an economy that provides upward mobility for the large immigrant and other working poor population. He has inherited a disaster, however much energy the boosters put into "everything's fine" denial. He must triage. Then he must get some hits.

President Romney? Part I

2012-01-13T10:53:16-08:00

You'll see a new In-Depth Report to the right, Campaign 2012. With the help of honorary Front Page Editor Richard Silc, I'll compile the best stories of the substance — not the horse race — of the campaign.

It says much about a changing America to compare Willard Mitt Romney to his father. George Romney grew up amid financial hardships and did not graduate from college. During World War II, he worked to better worker conditions, including those of African-Americans, in Detroit; later, he turned around American Motors, was popular with unions and pursued development of small, innovative cars before their time. As governor of Michigan, George Romney was a moderate Republican, fought for civil rights and against Goldwater extremism — and came very close to being the GOP presidential nominee in 1968, before admitting he had been "brainwashed" by the Pentagon over Vietnam.

Willard Mitt Romney never knew anything but wealth. He holds an MBA and law degree from Harvard. He's never held what most Americans would consider a real job, having worked as a consultant and private equity player, most notably at Bain Capital. Although a moderate governor of Massachusetts, the son has readily embraced the extremism of the right in his quest for the White House.

The father was a leader of an America that made productive things and raised the standard of living of the majority of its citizens. Not only that, he had lived hard times and as an adult brought people together. The son is a leader of an America that makes financial deals, often leading to the looting of the productive wealth and destruction of good jobs it took a century to create. They don't use the words "buy, strip and flip" for nothing in private equity. The son is willing, eager really, to further drive people apart for his ambitions.

We'll take a deeper look at Romney's business career in future posts. But now we must begin to contemplate a Willard Mitt Romney presidency. Barack Obama emphatically does not deserve a second term. The list of his broken promises is long, leaving us in endless wars, hooked to the Republican "austerity" rock going over the cliff, our civil liberties further eroded, Wall Street and the plutocracy more in charge, and America at a perilous turning point. Remember climate change? The president has done nothing to address it, backing off the EPA, failing to make the robust case for passenger rail and transit, timorous in backing science. He had one chance to show how progressive governance could help Americans and retreated. It is a sign of the decadence of both parties, but especially the GOP, that the only reason for retaining Mr. Obama is to stave off the even worse extremism of his opponent.

But Arizonans have seen this movie before. Janet Napolitano did little to reform Arizona or tell the truth to her constituents. She was well-liked, had the real-estate boom to her back and, critically, was seen as the Adult keeping the Kookocracy from taking over. When she left, the Kooks completed their ascendancy, repealed her programs, made the state a world symbol of hate and intolerance — all this, despite decades of evidence that right-wing policies had hurt Arizonans. This is what playing defense gets you. And if you believe the reinvented Obama-as-populist, I have some tract houses in Pinal County at a good deal, $300,000 each.

One thing is clear about this campaign: We can't trust most of the press. The public editor of the New York Times solicited reader reaction on whether the newspaper's political reporters should, well, report facts. When Romney asserts that Mr. Obama has gone around the world "apologizing" for America, for example. The president has done no such thing. The wildest lies stated by GOP candidates are dutifully taken down as dictation by serious news organizations and vomited back at readers as is. And the New York Times is unsure what to do? This is astounding. Yet this happens widely, likely in your hometown newspaper.

But couldn't Romney swing back to the center in the general election and govern as a centrist, as he did in Massachusetts? Not likely. Richard Nixon's famous dictum has gone the way of a sane Republican Party. Romney won't get the intensity of "the base" without espousing extreme right-wing talking points — and remember, this GOP only wants to win 50 percent plus 1 (or get within stealing distance). It will take the mandate from there. As for governing, whatever Romney might like to do, he will bring in train the entire right-wing/plutocratic cast of the GOP to every appointment. Who knows? He might even get a Republican Congress, which would further kick the legs out of any real moderation the man ever had. Remember, he ran to be governor of a "liberal" state. Ambition is his compass.

But, back to roots. Mitt Romney doesn't understand the average American life, much less what is driving it downward. As Mike Huckabee said, he "looks like the guy who fired you." We shall see if it as devastating to Mitt as Alice Roosevelt's putdown of Tom Dewey, as the man on top of the wedding cake. If only we had a Dewey today.

A win for the good guy(s)

2012-01-11T09:19:40-08:00

Steve Goldstein sent out this email:

You recently received an e-mail from me--or from a friend who forwarded it to you--about the future of KJZZ's Here and Now, which I've hosted for the past five and a half years. I acted without authorization in telling you that the program would be going off the air.

In fact, KJZZ's management has not announced an end date for the program, and it will continue for the foreseeable future. My e-mail caused considerable confusion, and I hope it didn’t trouble you or lead you to reconsider your commitment to listening to KJZZ or supporting the station.

Thank you for being passionate about KJZZ and for supporting the station in our current and future endeavors.

Best wishes,

Steve Goldstein

My thanks to all the Rogue readers who let their displeasure known after reading about the potential loss of this vital program. I'm sorry if I got Steve into trouble with his bosses. But not sorry at all if this caused them to back down.

Heywood and Giffords

2012-01-09T11:38:19-08:00

The suicide death of Bill Heywood and his wife, Susan, hit many long-time Phoenicians hard. This is the hour of lead, remembered if outlived, as Emily Dickinson wrote. I heard from so many friends and acquaintances, some of whom hadn't been in touch for years. The Republic did a creditable job telling the story, although it's revealing that the article was closed to comments. Revealing about our age of thugs and haters, not about the Heywoods. I only ran into him twice, long after he had been a giant in radio. But he was a friend to thousands of us, "the bright good morning voice," as Harry Chapin sings in the poignant W.O.L.D.

Long before broadcasting was consolidated, roboticized and ruled by shock-jocks, talk-show screamers or anodyne one-size-fits-all national "easy listening" formulas, local radio was a very big deal in Phoenix. Radio antennas topped the skyline. Jack Williams, who served eight years as governor, started his career in radio. His trademark: "It's another beautiful day in Arizona. Leave us all enjoy it." Barry Goldwater was another radio guy. Older readers can tell those stories, but by the time I came along nobody was bigger than Bill Heywood. He was the morning drive-time man on KOY, historically at 550 on the a.m. dial, the oldest station in Arizona. His voice, as others have said, was velvet. His humor was witty, subtle and gentle. And he spun the popular playlist of the day. His afternoon counterpart, Alan Chilcoat, "sang" the weather. Corporate monopolists such as Clear Channel would never allow such un-focus-group-tested fun today.

Phoenix radio in the 1970s featured "mainstream" rock on KRIZ, KRUX and KUPD. The upstart KDKB played entire albums, was fiercely independent, counter-culture and fighting every Top 40 convention. I recall an easy-listening station but not its letters (KBUZ?); it did have some fairly cool promos, keying off locations in the city and ending with "and you've got the mellow sound of...). Speaking of which, a "mellow rock" station broadcast from the old Ramada downtown, including one of the era's few female jocks. Of course, the stalwarts such as KTAR and KOOL were there, too, as well as a classical station.

This sounds pretty paltry compared with the Bay Area, or cities that have full-time jazz stations. But Phoenix was a populous small town, and although nobody could ever accuse it of being a hub of intellectualism, it still held a little of its innocence and the Japanese Gardens still bloomed. Back then, the city did have many more well-paying jobs and diverse economy proportionate to today, but it was largely composed of engineering and technical types. This was long before iTunes or streaming. We loved what we had. It was intensely local. It brought us together. And I can't think of another DJ who brought more people into community than Heywood. He kept me company on countless mornings and through some hard times. E.J. Montini rightly eulogized him as "the last nice guy" (maybe not: My friend Pat McMahon continues on, but the media era that valued that is gone). Unlike the wandering character in W.O.L.D., Heywood stuck to Phoenix, became the best of it in that day. Also unlike the song's DJ, Heywood by all accounts was blessed with a true love in Susan. But radio, a tough business in the best of times, changed. Bill ended up in real estate, and the couple suffered setbacks in the Great Recession and finally with Susan's health. Rest in peace, friends. May all your tears be dried.

This was a tragedy. The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, along with the wounding and murder of others, including a federal judge, was a crime. The one-year anniversary of this monstrous act was commemorated Sunday with much coverage and little clarity. The Republic did print an important essay by my friend Tom Zoellner, who has written the book, A Safeway in Arizona: What the Gabrielle Giffords Shooting Tells Us About the Grand Canyon State and Life in America. Don't be fooled by the "let's don't offend anyone" headline. Zoellner raises profound questions, including about the social detachment that has become the norm in the state and neglect of mental health.

As far as I can tell, however, the shootings provided little shock therapy for Arizona or America. At a vigil Sunday in Westlake Park, in downtown liberal Seattle, guys showed up openly packing. And their point was...? The efforts to make what happened to Gabrielle Giffords into an uplifting Lifetime television movie are offensive. Neurological issues, especially from such a near-lethal trauma, are notoriously difficult. We can't know what's really happening in her life. All we can do is send prayers or good thoughts. This is particularly true because of the flight from reality that almost immediately followed the shooting.

Opinion leaders and most "liberal" politicians were quick to distance themselves from Pima County Sheriff Dupnik's truth-telling, that a climate of political extremism provided the tinder for this conflagration. The mental illness of the shooter helped give camouflage. The political extremism is on the right, by the way, and the whipped-up Tea Party, guns-everywhere-legislation, show your shootin' irons when the president visits, Sarah Palin "don't retreat, reload!!" atmosphere has barely abated in its tip-of-the hat to violence. The threats against Giffords were real and more severe than faced by any other member of the delegation, save Rep. Raul Grijalva. No gun control measures followed this quickly dubbed "tragedy." Indeed, guns on campus is the big deal for the Legislature in a state facing huge real issues. Few now will call what happened a year ago what it was: An attempted political assassination.

Given the temper, ignorance and falling living standards of the nation, I fear it is not the last we will see. Sadly, the ignorance and hate will be served up by radio, the medium Bill Heywood so loved and served with such honor and class.

The American promise

2012-01-08T13:41:44-08:00

Editor's note: This is an essay I wrote for the Jan. 8th edition of the Seattle Times' Pacific Northwest magazine (it's one of the last metropolitan newspapers to carry its own magazine):

I overhear many conversations about the economy, but the topper came recently in downtown Seattle. As two well-dressed men discussed the eurozone crisis and high unemployment at home, one said, "I'll tell you what I think it is: It's the beginning of the end of the world."

The severe recession and its staggering aftermath do represent the end of a world, if not the world. We live in the new hard times.

People sense it. A Rasmussen Poll last October found that only 37 percent of likely voters believed that America's best days were ahead. In a Gallup survey, 55 percent of respondents said it was very or somewhat unlikely that today's youth would enjoy a better life than their parents'.